The effects of Read Naturally on grade 3 reading.
Heistad, D. (2008). Unpublished manuscript.
-
examining44Students, grade3
Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2016
Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade Practice Guide- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Study sample characteristics were not reported.Read Naturally Intervention Report - Beginning Reading
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2013
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Read Naturally.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Northwest Achievement Levels Test (NALT): Reading |
Read Naturally vs. business as usual |
full |
Grade 3;
|
192.30 |
187.73 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment (MCA): Reading portion |
Read Naturally vs. business as usual |
full |
Grade 3;
|
1363.18 |
1331.36 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
13% English language learners -
Female: 59%
Male: 41% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Minnesota
-
Race Black 37% Native American 14% White 45% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 5% Not Hispanic or Latino 95%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in the Minneapolis Public School District, in schools that were not on the No Child Left Behind list of schools failing to make adequate yearly progress in 2003.
Study sample
Read Naturally® was implemented with third-grade students in three elementary schools in the Minneapolis Public School District. Comparison group students were drawn from the same grade in the same school district. The author does not specify the number of schools attended by comparison group students. Students were selected for the Read Naturally® intervention based on parent and teacher recommendations and, according to the author, were generally not considered to be “on course” for proficiency on the state assessments administered in the spring of grade 3. The analysis sample included 44 third-grade students (22 in the Read Naturally® group and 22 in the comparison group). The demographic characteristics of Read Naturally® students were: 41% male, 4% classified as special education, 35% English language learners (ELL), and 50% were receiving free or reduced-price lunch. With respect to race and ethnicity, 39% of the intervention group students were Hispanic, 36% were African American, 22% were White, and 14% were Native American. No similar demographic information for the comparison sample was presented in the study.
Intervention Group
Two schools used the Read Naturally® Masters Edition that employed audio cassettes and hard-copy reading materials, while one school used the Read Naturally® Software Edition. Two schools implemented Read Naturally® as a pull-out intervention during the school day, while one school used it as part of an after-school program. No further information was provided in the study regarding how the intervention was implemented.
Comparison Group
The study author created a matched comparison group from within the Minneapolis Public Schools using students that were not receiving the Read Naturally® program. Students were first matched by a pretest score on the NALT Reading measure, followed by the following demographic factors: grade, ELL status, special education status, free or reduced-price lunch, race/ethnicity, home language, and gender. Read Naturally® students were only matched to students who attended schools with the same AYP status as their own school.
Outcome descriptions
Eligible outcome measures included the reading portions of two state-based assessments, the NALT and the MCA. Both assessments were administered in the spring, with the prior year’s NALT scores being used as a pretest measure. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B. In addition, Reading Fluency Monitor (RFM) passages were administered in fall, winter, and spring. The findings from the RFM outcome measure are not included in this review because baseline equivalence for the analytic sample was not established.
Support for implementation
A Read Naturally® instructor trained one teacher in each school on the Read Naturally® procedures. Training included: initial assessment of student level of instruction using curriculumbased measurement procedures, placement procedures, use of comprehension assessments and strategies, student goal setting, and progress monitoring procedures.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Read Naturally, Inc. (n.d.). Case 9: Third-grade students, Minneapolis, Minn. Retrieved from http://www.readnaturally.com
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).